To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .

To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services
Please confirm that you accept the terms of use.

Two intermittent fasting variants, intermittent energy restriction (IER) and time-restricted feeding (TRF), have received considerable interest as strategies for weight-management and/or improving metabolic health. With these strategies, the pattern of energy restriction and/or timing of food intake are altered so that individuals undergo frequently repeated periods of fasting. This review provides a commentary on the rodent and human literature, specifically focusing on the effects of IER and TRF on glucose and lipid metabolism. For IER, there is a growing evidence demonstrating its benefits on glucose and lipid homeostasis in the short-to-medium term; however, more long-term safety studies are required. Whilst the metabolic benefits of TRF appear quite profound in rodents, findings from the few human studies have been mixed. There is some suggestion that the metabolic changes elicited by these approaches can occur in the absence of energy restriction, and in the context of IER, may be distinct from those observed following similar weight-loss achieved via modest continuous energy restriction. Mechanistically, the frequently repeated prolonged fasting intervals may favour preferential reduction of ectopic fat, beneficially modulate aspects of adipose tissue physiology/morphology, and may also impinge on circadian clock regulation. However, mechanistic evidence is largely limited to findings from rodent studies, thus necessitating focused human studies, which also incorporate more dynamic assessments of glucose and lipid metabolism. Ultimately, much remains to be learned about intermittent fasting (in its various forms); however, the findings to date serve to highlight promising avenues for future research.

The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (75–100 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. This study aimed to characterise the early metabolic response to these varying degrees of ER, which occurs acutely and prior to weight loss. Ten (three female) healthy, overweight/obese participants (36 (SEM 5) years; 29·0 (sem 1·1) kg/m2) took part in this acute three-way cross-over study. Participants completed three 1-d dietary interventions in a randomised order with a 1-week washout period: isoenergetic intake, partial 75 % ER and total 100 % ER. Fasting and postprandial (6-h) metabolic responses to a liquid test meal were assessed the following morning via serial blood sampling and indirect calorimetry. Food intake was also recorded for two subsequent days of ad libitum intake. Relative to the isoenergetic control, postprandial glucose responses were increased following total ER (+142 %; P=0·015) and to a lesser extent after partial ER (+76 %; P=0·051). There was also a delay in the glucose time to peak after total ER only (P=0·024). Both total and partial ER interventions produced comparable reductions in postprandial TAG responses (−75 and −59 %, respectively; both P<0·05) and 3-d energy intake deficits of approximately 30 % (both P=0·015). Resting and meal-induced thermogenesis were not significantly affected by either ER intervention. In conclusion, our data demonstrate the ability of substantial ER to acutely alter postprandial glucose–lipid metabolism (with partial ER producing the more favourable overall response), as well as incomplete energy-intake compensation amongst overweight/obese participants. Further investigations are required to establish how metabolism adapts over time to the repeated perturbations experienced during IER, as well as the implications for long-term health.

Recommend this

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.